Translation has long been fundamental to cross-cultural exchange, yet its role in shaping perceptions of Chinese philosophy remains controversial. Early translations by missionaries such as Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) and James Legge (1815–1897) pave the way for Western engagement with Confucianism. However, their translations often distorted Chinese thought by interpreting it through a Christian lens. Terms like tian 天 and dao 道 were rendered as “Heaven” and “the Way” respectively, which carry theological connotations that are foreign to China’s correlative and process-oriented worldview. These semantic mismatches arise from asymmetrical comparative frameworks that privilege Western analytical categories over Chinese relational thinking. This article examines these issues through the case of a crucial Confucian phrase “junzi yu yu yi” 君子喻于义. Through a comparison of traditional translations and contemporary reinterpretations, it illustrates the necessity of contextual interpretation grounded in translation practices.
Analects 4.16
Cultural Asymmetry and Hermeneutic Challenges
According to Roger T. Ames (2017), the translation of Chinese philosophical concepts often suffers from the Procrustean bed syndrome, in which Western frameworks distort Chinese ideas to fit alien categories. In Chinese, this phenomenon is called xuezushilü 削足适履, literally meaning “cut the feet to fit the shoes,” but more commonly used as a metaphor for counterproductive compromise. For instance, yi 义, a Confucian virtuosity denoting context-sensitive appropriateness, is frequently rendered as “righteousness,” a term steeped in Christian moral tenets. Similarly, junzi 君子,traditionally translated as “gentleman” or “superior man,” evokes a set of European aristocratic manner rather than the Confucian emphasis on moral cultivation and social exemplarity. These distortions reflect a broader epistemological asymmetry: Western philosophical assumptions dominate interpretations of Chinese thought, while reciprocal engagement remains rare.
This asymmetry extends to cosmological terms like tian. In Legge’s 19th-century translation, tian becomes “Heaven,” bringing Confucian cosmology into Christian theology. Yet classical Chinese texts depict tian as an ever-transforming order which is absent of an absolute being —closer to what Ames called “acosmotic order” than a divine entity. Ames further reveals that Western discourse is rooted in a “divine-centered” transcendental and dualistic framework that continues the ancient Greek tradition of “metaphysical realism” (Roger T. Ames, Living Chinese Philosophy: Essential Writings of Roger T. Ames, p. 3). Chinese philosophy, however, fundamentally diverges from this worldview and should not be interpreted through this Western lens. Tian Chenshan 田辰山 used the term tongbian 通变, or “continuity through change,” to express the Chinese worldview of “the inseparability of one and many” (yiduobufen 一多不分) (Tian Chenshan, Chinese Dialectics: From the Yijing to Marxism, p. 25). This worldview sees everything as constantly changing and interrelated, which distinguishes it from the Western dualistic thinking based on a single order of linear cause and effect. To mitigate these issues, they advocate for “hermeneutic contextualization”—a method that acknowledges the translator’s active role in mediating cultural horizons.
Roger T. Ames, Living Chinese Philosophy: Essential Writings of Roger T. Ames
Recontextualizing “Junzi yu yu yi”
The phrase “junzi yu yu yi” contrasts the moral focus of junzi with the profit-driven mindset of xiaoren 小人. Historically, jun 君 referred to rulers, but it consistently evolved to represent a moral ideal emphasizing self-cultivation and social responsibility. Confucius redefined “junzi” as individuals who embody ren 仁and act according to yi—a situational sense of propriety rooted in relational role ethics. In Analects 4.16, Confucius stated: “Junzi yu yu yi; xiaoren yu yu li.” (君子喻于义,小人喻于利) Here, yi is not a fixed rule but rather a cultivated sensitivity to contextual optimizing fittingness within dynamic social relationships.
Interpretations of this passage by traditional commentators generally fall into two complementary strands. One defines junzi primarily by external social status, as seen in Han dynasty exegesis. Zheng Xuan 郑玄 (127-200) wrote in his annotation of the Book of Songs: “Knowing how to profit threefold from trade is fitting for petty persons (xiaoren); it is unfitting for exemplary persons to know such things.” He cited “junzi yu yu yi” to criticize officials’ exploitation of the people. The other strand emphasizes moral character and practice. Jiao Xun 焦循 (1763-1820) quoted the Xunzi passage “Royal Regulations”: “Even descendants of kings or officials who fail to uphold ritual propriety (liyi) become commoners; commoners who cultivate virtue may rise to become officials.” Liu Baonan 刘宝楠 (1791-1855) clarified: “Officials are exemplary persons; commoners are petty persons.” Both traditions agree that the status of a junzi inherently implies moral exemplarity, as Dong Zhongshu 董仲舒 (179-104 BCE) asserted: “If the ruler prioritizes righteousness (yi), the people incline toward humaneness (ren); if he prioritizes profit (li), they incline toward wickedness” (Liu Baonan, Lunyu Zhengyi 论语正义, p. 154). This underscores the junzi’s role as a relational “focus” within a social “field,” where status and moral virtuosity are co-constitutive.
Portrait of Zheng Xuan
Traditional translations, however, often obscure this relational nuance. For example, Legge’s rendering—“The mind of the superior man is conversant with righteousness; the mind of the mean man is conversant with gain” (James Legge, The Four Books, p. 9)—imposes hierarchical binaries (“superior”/“mean”) and Christian overtones (“righteousness”). Similarly, D.C. Lau’s translation—“The gentleman understands what is moral; the small man understands what is unprofitable” (D. C. Lau, Confucius: The Analects, p. 74)—conflates junzi with European nobility and reduces yi to abstract principles. Both translations fail to capture the relational fluidity affirmed by historical commentaries.
In contrast, Ames’ 1998 translation—“Exemplary persons (junzi) understand what is appropriate (yi); petty persons (xiaoren) understand what is of personal advantage (li)”—avoids Western binaries by emphasizing the interpretive context of yi. By using “exemplary persons,” Ames strips junzi of gendered or hierarchical baggage, aligning it closely with the original meaning of the Confucian text. Tian’s interpretation—“The exemplary person seeks to comprehend how to have appropriate conduct; the small person seeks to know how to make profit”—further underscores the dynamic, praxis-oriented connotation of yi by using the phrase “seek to comprehend.”
Toward a Culturally Grounded Method
The effective translation of Chinese classics requires more than linguistic proficiency; it necessitates an in-depth engagement with the philosophical ecosystems that gave rise to these texts. Translators should prioritize “contextual fidelity” over literal accuracy, employing strategies such as dynamic equivalence and critical annotation. For instance, translating yi as “situational appropriateness” or junzi as “exemplary persons” preserves relational nuances while avoiding Western-centric distortions.
Ames’ “focus/field” model provides a hermeneutic method for culturally sensitive translation. By framing junzi as an “exemplary focus” within a social “field,” this approach avoids reducing Confucian ethics to individualism or collectivism. The model also resonates with the yiduobufen worldview, in which ethics are traced to vital relationality rather than to abstract principles. Accordingly, translators act as mediators, not mere transmitters, of philosophical meaning, bridging cultural horizons while respecting the integrity of the original texts. A good translation positions the practitioner as a comparative hermeneutist rather than a passive conduit. By adopting the “focus-field” hermeneutic model and the logic of “continuity through change,” we respect the narrative integrity of Chinese texts. Only through such culturally attuned methods can Confucian expressions like “junzi yu yu yi” resonate authentically beyond linguistic borders.
Bian Junfeng, Enlightened: Yiduobufen
Conclusion
Translating Chinese classics is a demanding yet promising endeavor. Traditional interpretations of “junzi yu yu yi” reveal how Western-centric frameworks distort Confucian ethics, while contemporary hermeneutic approaches offer pathways to semantic and cultural fidelity. As globalization intensifies cross-cultural exchanges, it is imperative that translators embrace their role as cultural interpreters to ensure that China’s yiduobufen worldview is authentically represented in global discourse. By grounding translations in comparative hermeneutics and relational thinking, scholars can foster dialogues that transcend asymmetries and enrich both Chinese and Western philosophical traditions.
Xu Junhong, M.A. Candidate, International Confucian Academy, China University of Political Science and Law
【本文刊载于《走进孔子（中英文）》。本刊出版版权所有，未经允许，不得转载本刊文字及图片】
